Mac OS X does the same thing with preferences. Data is stored in a data directory, in a preferences file, and then finally the application itself. Preference files are just as mysterious, hence the creation of Secrets.
So I think the real question is why the three biggest operating systems all use centralized storage of preferences? Spinning some of those disadvantages: single point of failure = single point of troubleshooting centralized configuration = makes it *easier* to backup data that is actually unique to the user I don't know about you but I could care less about backing up my /Applications directory but you can bet I back up ~/Library! --Nathan On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Scott Granneman <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess my first question would be, why replace conf files? They're > ASCII, so they're readable & writable & scriptable by just about > anything. They're easily portable & copyable. They work. > > The Windows Registry is a big fat mess. Wikipedia goes into detail at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_registry#Advantages_and_Disadvantages: > > "# Centralizing configurations makes it difficult to back up and > recover individual applications. > > # In practice, manual manipulation of the registry might be required > where applications that are using the Registry do not implement > configuration through their user interface. > > # Because the Registry structure is contained in binary files, damage > to it is difficult to repair. Because information required for loading > device drivers is stored in the registry[25], a damaged registry may > prevent a Windows system from booting successfully. Note that damaged > configuration files have the same result to other operating systems, > but these can be repaired more easily using a text editor. > > # Any application that does not uninstall properly, or does not have > an uninstaller, can leave entries in the registry. Over time the > computer suffers "software rot" as the registry fills with left-over > and possibly incorrect entries. > > # Installers and uninstallers become complex, much more than just > copying files into a folder. > > # Applications that make use of the registry to store and retrieve > their settings are unsuitable for use on portable devices used to > carry applications from one system to another. > > # Since an application's configuration is centralized away from the > application itself, it is often not possible to copy installed > applications that use the Registry to another computer. This means > that software usually has to be reinstalled from original media on a > computer upgrade or rebuild, rather than just copying the user and > software folder to the new computer. > > # The Windows Registry is said to be a single point of failure.[26][27] > > # There are thousands upon thousands of different keys used by many > different Windows applications, and vendors rarely, if ever, document > the purpose of these keys to the outside world. Such information is > useful to the power user or system administrator." > > Now, granted, the same article, at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_registry#Equivalents_in_other_operating_systems, > does say this about Gconf: > > "However, in GConf, all application settings are stored in separate > files, thereby eliminating a single point of failure." > > Great. But what about all the other criticisms? They seem apropos to me. > > The point being, Gconf was a bad idea to begin with. And on top of > being a bad idea, it sounds like it was poorly implemented. Hey, now > we're approaching Microsoft levels of incompetence! Well done. > > Scott > -- > R. Scott Granneman > [email protected] ~ www.granneman.com > Full list of publications @ http://www.granneman.com/publications > My new book: Google Apps Deciphered @ http://www.granneman.com/books > > "I read about an Eskimo hunter who asked the local missionary priest, > 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?' 'No,' said > the priest, 'not if you did not know.' 'Then why,' asked the Eskimo > earnestly, 'did you tell me?'" > ---Annie Dillard > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Robert Citek <[email protected]> wrote: >> My guess is that it is supposed to be an auxiliary to (or replacement >> for) the ~/.*rc files. That's not a bad thing, if done well. gconf >> doesn't seem to be done well. Or if it is done well, it is poorly >> documented. >> >> Regards, >> - Robert >> >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Scott Granneman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Gconf was one of the worst things GNOME ever did. After years of knowing >>> how complex, user-hostile, & fragile the Windows Registry was, GNOME >>> decided to implement the same kind of thing for Linux. Brilliant! >> >> -- >> Central West End Linux Users Group (via Google Groups) >> Main page: http://www.cwelug.org >> To post: [email protected] >> To subscribe: [email protected] >> To unsubscribe: [email protected] >> More options: http://groups.google.com/group/cwelug >> > > -- > Central West End Linux Users Group (via Google Groups) > Main page: http://www.cwelug.org > To post: [email protected] > To subscribe: [email protected] > To unsubscribe: [email protected] > More options: http://groups.google.com/group/cwelug > -- Central West End Linux Users Group (via Google Groups) Main page: http://www.cwelug.org To post: [email protected] To subscribe: [email protected] To unsubscribe: [email protected] More options: http://groups.google.com/group/cwelug
